I had a software consulting business for over 10 years. Did quite well. Not that it's relevant to anything.

In reality I think the question that Delta's friend posed to potential employees was to get them to open up and reveal something about themselves. I wouldn't really answer in the way I did. But on the other hand, in my line of work I wouldn't consider that an appropriate question.

FWIW, when I went to work at a defense contractor back in 85, I was the key man in winning and completing a $15M contract. The biggest contract that they had won to date. I was put on the proposal within a couple months of signing on. And I revised the computer design to lower costs by $5K a unit, which was critical to the win. Critical to the extent that the DOD awarded the contract to GE and then had to retract the award because of our price difference.

They neither would have gotten the contract without me. And they could not have completed it in the required time frame without me. Even though they were a fairly large firm with a lot of engineers, the simulator software requirements were way outside their skill set. At the time they interviewed me I had no idea that I would be responsible for them winning and completing their largest contract to date.

OTOH, I had help. They had the facilities, an experienced proposal department, hardware engineers, and manufacturing capabilities. No man is an island.... right?

edit: Oh yeah, forgot to mention that in 1981 I taught myself how to program computers, set about writing a commercial video game in my spare time, then quit my job to finish it so it could be published. Went on to write several more published games. Google "Rally Speedway".

Also forgot to mention that I was hired by a California firm to open an office, hire employees, and operate a Florida subsidiary that developed computer software from 1992 to 1996. Totally independent and all business related activities were my responsibility.

Based on your previous comments, can I assume that you created lots of jobs and had lots of employees?

Just realized that this was directed at me. Did I create jobs? Hard to say. I contributed to job creation in company I worked for. There were other follow up contracts to that first one.

Net job creation was probably negative considering that I saved the taxpayer about $5M on that one contract. If the contract had gone to GE they probably would have hired 3 programmers to do the work of one (me) at company I worked at. Net negative job creation. Maybe I'm a job killer.

I created jobs in my local community when the California company hired me to open a subsidiary. Job creation is a complex subject. If you open a business that is efficient and undercuts your competitors you might think that you hiring created jobs, but your efficiency might result in net zero job creation.

Just realized that this was directed at me. Did I create jobs? Hard to say. I contributed to job creation in company I worked for. There were other follow up contracts to that first one.

Net job creation was probably negative considering that I saved the taxpayer about $5M on that one contract. If the contract had gone to GE they probably would have hired 3 programmers to do the work of one (me) at company I worked at. Net negative job creation. Maybe I'm a job killer.

I created jobs in my local community when the California company hired me to open a subsidiary. Job creation is a complex subject. If you open a business that is efficient and undercuts your competitors you might think that you hiring created jobs, but your efficiency might result in net zero job creation.

Automate your big factory? Maybe more negative net job creation.

Did the business that you created ever creat a job? Simple question... Of course no answer from Jeremy. I find it interesting that the biggest proponates for Obama and the liberal viewpoint regarding Obama's statement,

ďThere are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me ó because they want to give something back. They know they didnítÖ look, if youíve been successful, you didnít get there on your own. You didnít get there on your own. Iím always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something: there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

ďIf you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If youíve got a business, you didnít build that. Somebody else made that happen." -Barack Hussein Obama II Roanoke VA 7/13/2012

are people who have never built a business and never created a job, just like Obama. Obama has never created a business or a job and somehow he is an eminent source of information on the subject...

At least you John have somewhat of an idea what it is like to create a business.

I remember when computers and automation was supposed to have the effect of making life easier for the population. Turned out that concept completely ignored human nature, and resulted in just the opposite.

When I worked in logistics, after I got out of the Navy, I guess you could call me a job killer. I was a manager at three different distribution centers and what I was known for in our company was the ability to streamline our inbound logistic services. In two of the three I worked, I was able to cut 25% of our workforce which helped our bottomline. In the third, I was able to cut 12% of our workforce. One of my first tasks I would do, after making a move, would be to devise a list of who I was going to let go. Months before my resignation, I took over sanitation services and a portion of order selection for a center which lead to the company taking over sanitation services at many other centers around the country.

But what does this have to do with anything? Did Reagan ever own a business?

What does it have to do with anything? I will tell you! People's experiences are usually one of the primary influences on their beliefs or belief system. Here we have Obama, who has never built a business saying "If youíve got a business, you didnít build that. Somebody else made that happen.", yet he has no actual experience. We also have you and other people agreeing with him who have also never built a business.

Do I tell you how to mindlessly take orders and take action without thinking about them first? No I leave that to guys with Navy experience J/K

You just keep repeating your misconceptions in bold as if that is going to change what people think? What Obama said was correct. Businesses have a symbiotic relationship with society. They can't exist without society. They can't exist without reliance on many things that came before, and many things that are built to facilitate the economy they exist in.

You are nothing more than a condescending idiot who apparently doesn't have the critical thinking skills to grasp such a simple concept. Why do you keep asking other people to qualify themselves when you've done nothing more than portray yourself as a fool? How did you get where you are today? How much help did you get from your family or others?

A recent Romney ad featuring an alleged factory owner who was indignant over the GOP twisted interpretation of Obama's statement was revealed to be the recipient of 100's of thousands of dollars of govt backed loans. Even the guy in the ad apparently had his bootstraps pulled up by daddy. Not that there is anything wrong with that unless you are a hypocritical douchbag like he appears to be.

You just keep repeating your misconceptions in bold as if that is going to change what people think? What Obama said was correct. Businesses have a symbiotic relationship with society. They can't exist without society. They can't exist without reliance on many things that came before, and many things that are built to facilitate the economy they exist in.

You are nothing more than a condescending idiot who apparently doesn't have the critical thinking skills to grasp such a simple concept. Why do you keep asking other people to qualify themselves when you've done nothing more than portray yourself as a fool? How did you get where you are today? How much help did you get from your family or others?

A recent Romney ad featuring an alleged factory owner who was indignant over the GOP twisted interpretation of Obama's statement was revealed to be the recipient of 100's of thousands of dollars of govt backed loans. Even the guy in the ad apparently had his bootstraps pulled up by daddy. Not that there is anything wrong with that unless you are a hypocritical douchbag like he appears to be.

He didn't say JACK about society... Daddy is not the government. Your dad be able to save and then give their kids that money is one of the primary characteristics of liberty - PRIVATE PROPERTY. A heavy estate tax or a complete estate tax is one of hte primary characteristics of socialism...

He said... "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you have a business you didn't build that". The "that" referred to the roads and bridges. It was incorrect grammar, but you can insist that the only interpretation of that statement was the grammatically correct one. And you'd still be wrong.

The whole freak'n speech was littered to references to society and help from others. It's a shame that one has to keep arguing with the mentally deficit to continually set the record straight.

Really? Roads and bridges build business? I guess you're a Hoover man, are you John?

Depression solved, we can just build more roads and bridges, and then they will build more businesses.. That's a hell of a take on the business cycle...

Is this... "How many issues can I twist to obscure the fact I'm full of sh*t day?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tucker_McElroy

Obama also said "If youíve got a business, you didnít build that. Somebody else made that happen."
He didn't say something else built that, he somebody else. He is clearly talking about government.

Obviously govt built the roads and bridges. Does anyone believe they didn't? What is your point?

This is what I posted....

He said... "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you have a business you didn't build that".

What exactly are you correcting? I didn't write "Something". You know it's a simple matter of making an effort of actually acknowledging you understand the point I'm making to avoid being called an idiot. You don't to agree, but you do need to intellectually honest about what I said.

When someone writes clearly and concisely to convey their thoughts, then you respond as if they wrote something else, it makes you look stupid.

When someone writes clearly and concisely to convey their thoughts, then you respond as if they wrote something else, it makes you look stupid.

I was referring to what Obama said, that is why I posted the quote, "If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Generally when someone quotes something in a paragraph or sentance and then comments on that quote, most people can figure out that is what they are commenting on. I am sorry you can't figure that out. Now take your foot out of your mouth old man and carry on... I never said that you said anything. Why would I post about something you said? You are clearly not in a position of power and are of little influence in regards to the presidency and the US Government. It seems logical to me that I would post on something Obama said though...

Regardless of what anyone thinks it means, the overall message was the problem. Its basically setting up his opinoin that those who own businesses (and earn more money) should pay a greater tax because they couldnt do it without the infrastructure the government provided by the fruits of the poor labor force.

I agree, He's just attempting to justify the tax system and to get support for the upcoming tax increases. The problem is most of the tax money is squandered away and not used on infrastructure anyway. Public education is getting so bad that the Air Force has a huge problem in finding recruits that can pass their entrance examination.

I just love when people talk about misquoting and misrepresenting the president. Kind of heard that everyday on here for the last 8 years prior to obama. Or should I do to obama like they do on some websites and just put a * in place of his name.

I didn't know the Air Force had an entrance examination other than the ASVAB, which everyone takes to join the armed forces, or the test they give for potential programmers (which the Marine Corps also uses).

"Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you have a business you didn't build that".
If you actually listen to the statement, there is no pause between the word bridges and the word if, so if there is any punctuation between the two words it should be a comma and not a period. It should be:
"Somebody invested in roads and bridges, if you have a business, you didn't build that."
So, if you still don't believe the that refers to bridges, you are just Intellectually Dishonest.

That may be the test. I don't know the specifics about the testing, but a friend of mine is a recruiter and was talking about how hard it is to get recruits who can pass the entrance exam. Also expressed to me was a concern about all of "Big Brass" who are leaving the military since this administration took office. Of course, the same may be said about all of our past presidents. However, even though our educational system is good, we could be doing a better job at preparing young people for the work place.

I apologize for hitting Enter too soon, but what I was attempting to say was I remember Obama's whole campaign the first time he ran for president was based on infrastructure spending and redistribution. It's classic that the Journal posted a picture of him next to Elizabeth Warren.

"He has obviously been home-schooled and has a superior intellect when compared to some of the people on here... I don't think it is necessary to mention any names..."

It just shows that the "conservative agenda" requires you to have the intellect of a six year old. If you look around a bit, you can find some teenage douche that does a great Rush knock-off show. It would probably give you a chubby.

I go on vacation, play catch up at work and finally have time to come to WW and see this thread still going.

IMHO, Obama is a showman. He works the room based on the audience. He's a cameleon who can become anything needed to win the hearts and souls that will achieve his goals. I do not know where he was speaking when he said those now famous (or is it infamous?) words, but it was evident he was speaking to a group where he could create the class warfare that would inspire people to vote for him again and portray those who have wealth, even if they worked for it and earned it themselves by creating business, as evil.

It is true that all American people are born as equals, when it comes to freedoms, but this is not true in the terms of intelligence, gumption or fortitude. Dumb, lazy or drug or alcohol addicted parents typically raise dumb, lazy or drug or alcohol addicted kids who become dumb, lazy or drug or alcohol addicted adults. That is the one reason you have multi-generational welfare families, not because of someone's simple bad luck in life. The only way he can get these generations, or class of people, to participate in his agenda is to create the hate of those who are successful, by those who want the same thing without the school, work, risk and sometimes personal financial ruin to finally become successful/wealthy.

What amazes me is that the people who come from those adverse conditions, and actually create and/or work in business, usually turn their backs on those who still live in poverty. Why is that? Because they realize that those still living in poverty had the same chance they did to break the cycle but instead decided it was too difficult to do so and that it was easier to just accept the handouts. Furtthermore, the now successful are now called sellouts by doing so and becoming successful. In contrast, those who came from the same background of poverty and created success without actually creating anything, as in politics or some government created and sustained group, typically use the ones they left behind as pawns and only create chaos to maintain their power by creating the class and racial warfare like we see Obama doing in that video.

"He has obviously been home-schooled and has a superior intellect when compared to some of the people on here... I don't think it is necessary to mention any names..."

It just shows that the "conservative agenda" requires you to have the intellect of a six year old. If you look around a bit, you can find some teenage douche that does a great Rush knock-off show. It would probably give you a chubby.

Speaking of working the crowd like Obama; he doesn't have the market cornered on that. Check out some sermons by Paula White. I caught her during sermon one morning on television and she spoke one way and then spoke another when she was "in commercial" asking for donations "one on one".

Speaking of working the crowd like Obama; he doesn't have the market cornered on that. Check out some sermons by Paula White. I caught her during sermon one morning on television and she spoke one way and then spoke another when she was "in commercial" asking for donations "one on one".

How does selling out to lobbyists and political agendas "promote the equality of opportunity"? Romney, the true conservative....too bad all of that money he has stashed away can't help him win the election.

The delusions continue. This forum isn't an ad campaign where it's OK to lie to the people. Those of you who are apparently unable to understand the gist of that speech even when it's explained over and over are destroying any iota of respect for your intelligence there might be to salvage.

The fact is that Romney's ad that presents that grammatically incorrect single line is nothing more than an attempt to deceive. Even the guy in the ad was revealed to have received ~$1M in govt backed loans for his business. Yes I get it.. if you make over $200K a year then it's understandable that you will perpetuate the lie and even make up total fabrications about how a tax hike for higher earning will cause you to a) lay off people or not hire, or b) not work so hard. Even though both of those statements are incongruent with one another and make no sense, I understand that many people aren't intelligent enough to know why.

No business of any kind should get a government backed loan, that is not the role of the federal government. Cronyism is the result when government gets involved in business. I think the GOP is the lesser of the two evils, but both are terrible. Remember, I voted Ron Paul, and will vote Gary Johnson.

How does selling out to lobbyists and political agendas "promote the equality of opportunity"? Romney, the true conservative....too bad all of that money he has stashed away can't help him win the election.

You act as though none of the dems do the exact same thing.

John, I don't think I'm delusional. I heard what he said, in the speech as a whole and do not need someone to re-iterate it over and over again. Not some politician, some campaign or another radio talk show. Again IMHO, Obama was working the crowd, which he is the master at (it got him elected because he had no business whatsoever in the job), and he got carried away and said something he probably wishes he could take back.

In all honesty, I can't stand Obama. Why? Two reasons: He has done nothing but lie (or cover up) from day one and he is a charlatan. Do I think Romney is the answer to all of America's problems? I did in 2008, but I am not so sure now.

We need to spread the wealth. It needs to be through jobs and opportunities for all people of all levels of education. The problem is pretty obvious. We have expanded the American economy worldwide and the natural inclination is to buy our products from the cheapest source. So Obama is correct in that the wealth needs to be spread. It's not a question of should but how.

So Wakeboardingdad. If I understand what you are saying, it's that Obama meant "you didn't build business". Because it's obvious that I'm saying that isn't what he meant in his speech. If that's your argument, then I guess I'm saying you're wrong.

Obama hasn't done nothing but lie? That's a ridiculous accusation. You might have issues with dishonesty, but there's no lack of that with politicians as also evidenced by Romney's ad. Lying isn't a discriminator between politicians.

unemployment rate is over 8% for the longest period of time ever (since it's been kept track of)

Cliff,
That is Bush's fault and all the other presidents before him! You can't expect a President to be responsible for everything that happened prior to his term. George Washington had it the easiest, he didn't have to overcome what the president before him did.

Reagan had it pretty damn easy too, he got to follow President Carter.

LOL @ Mike Flynn thinking that businesses print money. Not a single dollar originated from business. It originated by the fed. Isn't that what so many have been harping about? That the fed can print money out of thin air with nothing backing it? How ironic that Tucker posted that article.

So Wakeboardingdad. If I understand what you are saying, it's that Obama meant "you didn't build business". Because it's obvious that I'm saying that isn't what he meant in his speech. If that's your argument, then I guess I'm saying you're wrong..

I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You say you personally created business and were/are successful. It is a lot of your posts that really get me to think and also wonder how you can still feel the way you do about Obama. It makes me look at the bigger picture. However, when I hear his speech, I hear him say that no one could be successful without the government and you are not special because you became successful. I also hear him say, essentially, that you (who are successful and created business) are not as smart as you think you are. He is essentially saying that everyone is the same. That is not true because some people have drive and determination and some do no. Some have goals to work, grow, and create and others just the desire to survive; much like a leech or parasite.

His entire problem as president is that he does not know how to elevate someone without tearing someone else down. He tears down the rich to elevate the poor through spews of hate (people who are successful and actually contribute) like in his speech, instead of inspiring the poor to elevate themselves. It is almost as if the rich should feel guilty for being successful and it is as if Obama feels they should just hand over their money and belongings to the poor. This is very similar to "everyone gets a trophy" mentality regardless of how hard someone worked to be first. You know, mediocrity at its finest. At what age do the fragile children (need to) grow up and have to realize that they should be responsible for their success? 3? 10? Or is it closer to 30, 60 or never?

Obama does not stop his tearing down at the rich. He has made it a habit to go all over the world tearing down this country. However, it is not to elevate the country in which he speaks, but to elevate himself to that country at the expense of America; what we stand for, why everyone wants to live here and what we have accomplished. At this point, you could say that I am lead by the right media because it seems, if you listen to them, he does this everywhere and does so after he says "hello". While I realize about half of what you hear is true, regardless of where it is coming from, if he did what I just stated only once, it was once too many. But I digress.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fly135

Obama hasn't done nothing but lie? That's a ridiculous accusation. You might have issues with dishonesty, but there's no lack of that with politicians as also evidenced by Romney's ad. Lying isn't a discriminator between politicians.

I do have issues with dishonesty. Of other people. One of Obama's campaign strengths was run on a transparent government format. He has been anything but transparent. While politicians make promises and do not keep them, which is technically lying, Obama has taken it to a whole new level.

In reality, Obama placates to whoever will get him elected or re-elected but disguises his whimsicalness as "growing".

I have tried not to watch the ads as they do nothing but distort the truth. Here is what I wish: Romney would come out, say he did what he obviously did and did so due to greed. It was the thing to do at the time and part of the bottom line economy; people be dammed. Today, the economy is different and everyone is feeling the pinch of the past greed. He knows it was a mistake, knows how to fix it and can get corporate America on board to do so. In doing so, this would create jobs for the people you talk about at all levels of experience and education. If Romney would do this, he may have a chance at winning.

LOL @ Mike Flynn thinking that businesses print money. Not a single dollar originated from business. It originated by the fed. Isn't that what so many have been harping about? That the fed can print money out of thin air with nothing backing it? How ironic that Tucker posted that article.

See John, you have to fall back to such an inane argument, it is ridiculous..

Money is nothing more than a tool so that people who work, can exchange the value of their work for other goods and services. If the Fed didn't print it someone else would; furthermore, I doubt you will find many people here that actually support the Fed, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul..

And because I know that you all love Rand here is a pretty applicable quote from Atlas Shrugged,

"Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce."

There is no doubt that Obama has failed to deliver a lot of the lofty promises. However, what he is saying is fundamentally true. We need a strong middle class and the economic principles of this country don't seem to support that. It's always difficult for a politician to be brutally honest, which is why politics is mostly pandering lies. An economy like we are experiencing now gives Obama the opportunity to say *some* distasteful truths and get away with it. He's not just saying it because it's true, but because the environment is ripe for the message.

American's (or even any country) don't care about fair or what's right. They care about what is beneficial to them. Look at Romney putting his money in off shore accounts to keep from supporting his own country. It's dog eat dog. And with the statistics showing the wealthier doing better while the rest do poorer, is it any surprise that the wealthy are a target?

Why do people think they need to defend the very wealthy when they have so little awareness of what's going on that they can't even see blatant discrimination among themselves? How about laws that serve no purpose but to discriminate and enrich deep pockets? Things that are never paid attention to.

For example... what purpose does a 401K serve? I can put over twice as much money in a 401K as I can an IRA. However 401K's have management fees and IRAs don't. If you don't work for a company that offers a 401K you are forced to save less for your retirement. I can't think of a single reason for the existence of a 401K, except that the financial industry lobbied to get Congress to write a law that funneled money in their pockets.

How about another... My employer offers a 125 Heath Insurance plan. That means I can pay for HI on pretax (even FICA) dollars. But if you don't have an employer with a plan you have to pay for HI on taxed dollars and *maybe* you can write off some of that on your tax return. But maybe not. Again... what is the purpose for punishing people who don't have employer plans like I do?

We don't even stick up for each other WRT simple fundamentals principles. Even though the last 10 years should be a revelation for all of us, we've managed to distort the events and come to crazy conclusions. The housing market should have made us keenly aware of the detrimental inflationary effects of easy money. But when it's clear that the same process is hyper inflating healthcare, we can't see it. The same with our failed obsession with nation building. Yet everyone wants to keep throwing good money after bad with Afghanistan.

This election is about deep philosophical divides. Not about finding an honest politician.

See John, you have to fall back to such an inane argument, it is ridiculous..

The fact that you find my argument inane is a testament to your lack of awareness. The govt is $16T in debt from injecting money into the economy, yet you post an article that claims the govt has nothing to do with it. Money is a catalyst for production. It is more than a tool for exchange.

When money dries up, productivity will follow suit. Creating money out of thin air can boost production if it gets into the right hands. It's no secret that our economy hemorrhages $1/2T alone in just the trade deficit. Articles like the one you posted are simply intended to manipulate people who don't have the capacity to think for themselves.

So that makes it okay? You justify a wrong action by the actions of the opposing party?

"In reality, Obama placates to whoever will get him elected or re-elected but disguises his whimsicalness as "growing"."

Is the reality of Romney different? I mean are you saying that there is a politician out there that doesn't "placate" a certain group?

Jeremy, you brought up the offshore accounts, not I. You stating that he does it, made me believe that you thought your liberal leaders would not stoop to such a low point. Now you are saying that two wrongs don't make it right. Come on, if they are all doing it, what's the point of you posting Romney's offshore accounts. They are all wrong, but enticed to do so to protect themselves from THEMSELVES.

You are right. All politicians are selling something and it is the something that the perspective voters want to hear. In Obama's case, his fundamental change for same sex marriage is timed oh so perfectly, as well as his amnesty executive privilege debacle. As for me, I will admit that I am very critical of Obama, but not insane about it. I was not happy that he was elected but tried to maintain an optimistic view that he might succeed. Unfortunately, that has been the case. As for my GOP candidate or president; I also admit that no one is perfect, they do and say things which they said they would not do and I would be more likely to turn a blind eye to them. (See John, I told you I was honest.)

The fact that you find my argument inane is a testament to your lack of awareness. The govt is $16T in debt from injecting money into the economy, yet you post an article that claims the govt has nothing to do with it. Money is a catalyst for production. It is more than a tool for exchange.

Lack of awareness - that's funny! See, you are twisting the argument again. The article has nothing to do with the Fed or the government injecting money into it. Money is not the catalyst for production, money is a tool for the easy exchange of one's work for the product of someone else's work. What is good money without something to spend it on. Economies have worked throughout the history of man, often without the aid of government. Demand is the catalyst for production.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fly135

When money dries up, productivity will follow suit. Creating money out of thin air can boost production if it gets into the right hands. It's no secret that our economy hemorrhages $1/2T alone in just the trade deficit. Articles like the one you posted are simply intended to manipulate people who don't have the capacity to think for themselves.

More Keynesian economics BS. I am fully capable of thinking for myself. We need to end the Fed. We can do it by having competing currencies and allowing the Fed to continue to destroy itself. It will.

But once again, you can't actually make an argument without trying to completely change the subject. Your positions are so faulty that you can't defend them, instead you must deflect and change the discussion. The government didn't build anything, the people did.

Obama believes in the same crap that you do. The House has voted to extend the Bush tax cuts for all Americans, 257-174, not just selected groups. Instead of signing on to this idea, the Senate and POTUS want to tax successful Americans more than others because treating these successful Americans the same as everyone else will "Cost" the Federal Government lots of money. It will not "Cost" the Federal Government anything, it will only cost the successful Americans if they have to pay the additional taxes.

The money is only a tool that represents one's productivity. The money belongs to the person who did the producing (or whomever they wish to give it to i.e. their families), not the government. The government does not have a right to that money.

I know very well of US Constitution Article 1, Section 8 and the power to coin money, I also know all about US Constitution Article Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shallÖcoin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt. So yes, I very well understand the third incarnate of the Central Bank that is the Federal Reserve.

But any way that you argue, the people have built everything in this country, not the government.

Tucker, the reason why you think it's changing the subject is because you can't understand all of the ramifications that surround an issue. The fed expanding the money supply is very much a source of money in the economy. Which is why the article you posted is deceptive reasoning. If in fact we were stuck with a limited sized economy, which is what happens on the gold standard then the case would be different.

Quote:

But any way that you argue, the people have built everything in this country, not the government.

Just another example of your limited thinking. The govt is of the people and by the people. So yes... the people did build everything. Now if you are talking about the pyramid's in Egypt, there's a tin foil hat group that would argue something else.

Tucker, the reason why you think it's changing the subject is because you can't understand all of the ramifications that surround an issue. The fed expanding the money supply is very much a source of money in the economy. Which is why the article you posted is deceptive reasoning. If in fact we were stuck with a limited sized economy, which is what happens on the gold standard then the case would be different.

Just another example of your limited thinking. The govt is of the people and by the people. So yes... the people did build everything. Now if you are talking about the pyramid's in Egypt, there's a tin foil hat group that would argue something else.

You make me laugh old man. Printing money is also nothing but a tax on savings. I very well know and understand the economy, but that article has nothing to do with the Fed. It simply says that the people are responsible for their success, no the roads, bridges, or federal government. I really enjoy how you try to conflate every issue and every discussion.

"Jeremy, you brought up the offshore accounts, not I. You stating that he does it, made me believe that you thought your liberal leaders would not stoop to such a low point. Now you are saying that two wrongs don't make it right. Come on, if they are all doing it, what's the point of you posting Romney's offshore accounts."

Not really. I was implying that Romney is a wealthy man, but that wealth does not seem to be helping him in the election. And not to mention, Romney was a progressive as Governor in MA, now he is a conservative. If that is not "placating" a group, I don't know what is.

"Jeremy, you brought up the offshore accounts, not I. You stating that he does it, made me believe that you thought your liberal leaders would not stoop to such a low point. Now you are saying that two wrongs don't make it right. Come on, if they are all doing it, what's the point of you posting Romney's offshore accounts."

Not really. I was implying that Romney is a wealthy man, but that wealth does not seem to be helping him in the election. And not to mention, Romney was a progressive as Governor in MA, now he is a conservative. If that is not "placating" a group, I don't know what is.

Romney is not a conservative by any definition of the word, except when compared to Obama. Most conservatives know this already. Just google "The Romney Book".

Not really. I was implying that Romney is a wealthy man, but that wealth does not seem to be helping him in the election. And not to mention, Romney was a progressive as Governor in MA, now he is a conservative. If that is not "placating" a group, I don't know what is.

The US is bleeding money through the trade deficit because that is what the democrats want. Start listing all their big treaties and crap they keep wanting to get into with the UN and tell me what those are? Save the environment? Stop guns? Every single one of them are meant to move US money to the third world off of our backs. It is not about defending rich considering most of the wealthiest people in the country are democrat and all the wealthy portions of the country are democrat. It is about seeing how money works. and how jobs are created and also about keeping our freedoms. I see nothing of that from the democrats and only part of it from republicans. I don't hate rich people. Don't really trust them either. It is a necessary part of life. No person has ever got a job from a poor person.

HaHaHA! Romney is still running his campaign off a comment taken "OUT OF CONTEXT" and the republican party thinks this is the way to win an election? I don't remember any party who has based their campaign on a statement taken out of context. They edit out the words before "if you have a business." The only people that believe it was not taken out of context are intellectually dishonest Fox supporters or republicans that are just blindly voting for romney anyway, so I don't think it is helping their campaign.

Jeremy. You again can not read for context. You said he is a progressive. He is not a European socialist. Look up what progressive is and you will find that Obama is that. Romney's stance on healthcare is consistent with states rights which is a very Republican stance. Now we can argue the merits of that program in regards to that state, but, to be honest I have no idea what the dynamics are over there.

Regardless, lets get down to brass tax. Let's look at all the treaties that democrats constantly want our government to sign. Can you possibly defend that? Why do they constantly want us to sign share the wealth treaties? If you were one bit honest, you would see them for what they are.

Oh.... How about your boy obama going after the military vote in Ohio by saying it is illegal to let them vote up until the day before the election? Why are the democrats so afraid of the military voters?

Oh.... How about your boy obama going after the military vote in Ohio by saying it is illegal to let them vote up until the day before the election? Why are the democrats so afraid of the military voters?

If you'd actually read the news story (instead of berating others here about their reading comp sklils) you'd know that they are not going after the military vote in the least. Even Faux news admitted this. The republican state congress is the one that altered the long-standing law allowing everyone the same rights - they altered it to take those rights away from everyone BUT those in the military. Hmm wonder why? The suit is to restore the same rights to everyone, saying it is unconstitutional that they took them away from others. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...oting-in-ohio/

The Obama campaignís request for a preliminary injunction does not seek to restrict military voting. Rather, it simply is asking that the full early voting period be open to all citizens, as it was under the law before this year.
Even Fox News acknowledges the purpose of the suit, noting ďthe lawsuit does not restrict the ability of military personnel to cast their ballots early.Ē

Really Wes. You avoided the main question. Why do ALL democrat treaties try and move our money out of the country and to the UN?

Funny how you criticize my comp skills and then tell me to actually read the article that I guess I did not read. Why do you think they changed the law for the military? The other people in Ohio do not need that time. It is intended to vote on one day to keep fraud out of the election process. The military is on deployment and may not be in a position to vote. They modified it so the people in their state can vote fairly as possible. It does not play well for the democrats to do this. There is a reason the democrats are going after this and my guess is do they can cheat like they usually do. Just like them not wanting people to have to show I.D. to vote. Just like all the dead people voting in Cook County in Chicago to get Kennedy elected over Nixon back in the day. Just like California making voter registration laws and then trying to make it so illegal aliens can get drivers license. It is all about cheating.

There is a reason the democrats are going after this and my guess is do they can cheat like they usually do. Just like them not wanting people to have to show I.D. to vote.

Please explain to me why all of a sudden we have a voter fraud problem. I have never seen so much effort involved trying to correct a problem that most people didn't think we had. Also why is it that Republican states are the ones that are pushing for these laws?

Quote:

There is a reason the democrats are going after this and my guess is do they can cheat like they usually do.

I don't know who would take your comments seriously when you make such ridiculous statements. Especially when you bring up Richard " I'm not a crook" Nixon, later in your comments.